 |
 |
-1 for BibTex! It can be hard to comprehensively parse without inadvertently creating garbage. Tom On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> The purpose of description can best be served by a format that can easily be >> displayed for human beeings. You can either use a simple string or a >> well-known format. A string can be displayed but people will put all >> different citation formats in there. Right now there are only two >> established metadata formats that aim at creating a citation: >> >> a) BibTeX >> b) The input format of the Citation Style Language (CSL) >> > This isn't entirely true. There's RIS > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIS_%28file_format%29) and BIBO > (http://bibliontology.com/) is starting to become quite common in the > linked data sphere. > > There's also BibJSON (http://www.bibkn.org/bibjson/index.html) which > I've had a browser tab open for months with the intention of actually > looking at and actually seems quite well suited for how Twitter will > store annotations. My opinion of it all along, however, has been very > similar to yours -- why another citation format and why bind it so > closely to a particular serialization? > > -Ross. >